Outrage and joy: Reactions to Skakel decision as sharply divided as the court that made it

1 / 17

Back to Gallery

Michael Skakel’s relatives and supporters called the state Supreme Court’s decision to vacate a murder conviction against him a just and well-reasoned finding that finally vindicates an innocent man falsely accused of killing his teenage neighbor.

Related Stories

But others close to the case view the latest twist in the serpentine, 43-year-old drama as an example of the legal system being gamed through connections and behind-the-scenes maneuverings.

Even the court itself was sharply divided.

Skakel was said to be thrilled — though his satisfaction is tempered by the realization that he has lost more than a decade in prison for the murder of Martha Moxley, according to his current defense lawyer, Michael Fitzpatrick.

“He is gratified and elated,” said Fitzpatrick, a Bridgeport attorney. “But the years of appeals have exhausted him, and he lost 111/2years of his life, that’s an extremely difficult thing to deal with.”

The high court on Friday declared Skakel was denied a fair hearing due to an inept defense presented by his attorney, Michael Sherman, during his 2002 murder trial.

A decision on whether to retry Skakel will be made by state prosecutors, possibly in the coming weeks. A spokesman for the state’s attorney declined to comment on the ruling Friday, saying it was under review. Prosecutors could decline to seek a new trial.

Dorthy Moxley, the mother of Martha Moxley, expressed disappointment and sadness in the ruling, reiterating her belief in Skakel’s guilt.

A longtime observer of the case, Leonard Levitt, said the process behind the court decision was questionable.

“Connecticut is a great state in a lot of ways, but criminal justice is not its forte,” said Levitt, a Stamford writer and investigative reporter whose work on the Skakel case for Hearst Connecticut Media revealed problems with the initial investigation and helped prompt renewed interest by law enforcement in the 1990s.

Martha, a 15-year-old Greenwich High School sophomore, was beaten to death with a golf club near her home in the wealthy enclave of Belle Haven on the night before Halloween in 1975. Investigators failed to arrive on a suspect, and the case grew cold in the long years between the murder and developments that pointed law enforcement toward Skakel before his 2000 arrest. He was convicted in a jury trial in 2002.

Levitt said the decision Friday to vacate the conviction was “rigged,” noting the Supreme Court reversed itself following a change in its composition last year. “They deliberately waited to get one guy off the court,” he said.

The high court in late 2016 determined Skakel had received a fair trial. But Skakel’s team successfully petitioned for the court to reconsider. As it did, Justice Peter T. Zarella, who wrote the initial majority opinion, was replaced by Justice Gregory T. D’Auria, who voted in the opposite way in the decision released Friday.

A majority of the newly constituted court concurred that a poor performance by Sherman denied Skakel a fair trial. In particular, the justices stated a potential alibi witness, Dennis Ossorio, who says was with Skakel on the night of the murder, was negligently overlooked. Ossorio never testified in the 2002 trial, though he said in subsequent legal hearings that he and Skakel were watching television with a group of people miles from the crime scene.

On Saturday, Ossorio said he had been contacted by someone official a while ago. “I’m so old, I can’t remember,” he said.

“I don’t know why it’s dragged on for so long,” Ossorio said at his Rye Brook, N.Y., home, declining further comment.

But Levitt said there was a plausible scenario the murder was committed after midnight, making Ossorio’s alibi testimony irrelevant.

Sherman did not respond to calls for comment.

The Supreme Court justices were sharply divided, 4-3. In a dissenting opinion, Justice Carmen E. Espinosa raised the issue of “judge shopping” in the way the decision was reversed after a turnover on the bench. She questioned whether Ossorio was indeed a crucial witness, noting the crime could have been committed later that night.

“A simple gut feeling that things might well have gone differently for the petitioner if Ossorio had testified is not enough, as a matter of law,” she wrote.

The justice implied Skakel’s extensive legal team gave him a better chance to have his conviction vacated.

“There are thousands of convicted criminals languishing in Connecticut’s prisons, approximately two-thirds of whom are either African American or Hispanic, who would undoubtedly be thrilled to receive such special treatment,” Espinosa wrote in her dissent. “Unfortunately for them, the vast majority do not share the petitioner’s financial resources, social standing, ethnicity or connections to a political dynasty. Nor do their cases share the same ‘glam’ and celebrity factor as this cause celebre, which over the course of decades has spawned dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands, of books, television programs, and newspaper and magazine articles.”

Skakel has had prominent and high-profile defenders. His cousin, Robert Kennedy Jr., has been a longtime supporter and published a book in 2016 making the case for Skakel’s innocence.

“It was the decision we expected,” Kennedy said Saturday about the ruling. “I think anyone who looks the facts of the case in the cold light of day, and away from the media frenzy, has to be confronted by the reality that no crime was proven against Michael Skakel, and he could not have committed the crime.”

He said his cousin was “very happy,” but there is still some uncertainty on his behalf.

“He’s waiting to see if the state is going to retry him, which I highly doubt they would,” said Kennedy, a law professor.

In his book “Framed,” Kennedy said he believes the guilt behind Martha Moxley’s murder belongs to Burr Tinsley and Adolph Hasbrouck, two New York City teenagers who reportedly were in Greenwich on the night of the murder. The two men have repeatedly denied involvement in her death. Kennedy on Saturday said any new trial would bring out their potential involvement.

Former Greenwich detective Frank Garr, who worked for the state’s attorney’s office when he led the investigation into the murder, said he had “no comment of any kind” when reached Saturday.

The decision on whether to order a new trial for Skakel will be made by Richard J. Colangelo Jr., the state’s attorney for the Judicial District of Stamford-Norwalk.

“If, ultimately, the state’s attorney’s decision is to go forward with another trial, we will be prepared to defend the case, and it will be robust defense,” said Fitzpatrick, Skakel’s defense lawyer.

A meeting could be held with state prosecutors in the near future.

“We have great respect for State’s Attorney Colangelo. They’re going to weigh their options in due course. At some point, the parties will be meeting — all the lawyers will be meeting. And we will advocate on behalf of our client, Michel Skakel, for the state to drop the case,” Fitzpatrick said.